Finally it has happened that everyone is trying to hold public representatives to a high standard. Finally government, political parties, civil society and armchair critics are all on the same page. Without specifically mentioning anyone, let us be quite certain of the major features which have been presented: It’s about politicians not doing their jobs correctly, and about the people who want to remove these errant politicians from office.

We undoubtedly get the politicians we deserve, because we choose them in advance. We undoubtedly get the politicians we admire, because we choose them instead of the others. We undoubtedly get the politicians we support, because we choose them from their stated beliefs. We undoubtedly get the politicians we know, because we choose them and defend our choice to others.

Nonetheless, we reserve the right to condemn political behaviour with which we do not agree and we deserve the right to condemn political trajectory with which we do not agree. This manifests itself in many ways, both polite and acrimonious. Regardless of which, when the dust settles, we are left with a disgraced politician and the disgruntled people baying for the enforced removal from office of the disgraced politician.

What remains is for there to exist a basis upon which the people can act to effect such a removal, provided that the grounds for such a removal are valid. Whether mediated or celebrated, the removal must be quickly followed by a replacement, and then the initiation of a better quality of representation and leadership.

While the news media make a fuss of the denials and precursory blame shifting, we must never allow our demand for a better quality to be delayed or distracted. Although difficult it must be that our demand for a better quality is realised so that we can be assured that our choice of politician was not a wasteful exercise.